The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released the following statement:
You know all the panic we tried to instigate about how carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming? And how the UN secretary general said that "humanity faces oblivion if it fails to confront global warming"?
Our bad. Sorry. Seems that CO2 doesn't cause global warming after all. Never mind.
But we still want your money.That's right: Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.
CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."
"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."Global cooling! Well, even global cooling is climate change, right? So the bureaucrats in the IPCC and like entities will still be in business. But I do wonder how they will transition from warming alarmism to cooling alarmism. And how they will describe the catastrophic portents of global cooling in order to increase their funding.
And don't you love Prof. Lu's description of how CFCs and cosmic rays "conspire" to cool the globe? It's a plot, I tell ya!
But Prof. Lu is not the first scientist to denounce the CO2 theory of global warming.
Posts
